JOSECONLSCREW28

Effective in October.

http://cmiafa.org/news/cmi-sgn-flying/

spin88

I'm not surprised, with only 8.2M people in Saigon, and 1.7M people of Vietnamese ancestry in the US (400K in Nor Cal, 350K in So Cal) and a booming export oriented sector in Vietnam, it was never going to work out....

truncated

Who knows we might see a 787 SFO-SGN nonstop? Admittedly Vietnam traffic is very VFR-heavy but it can't be much worse than SFO-XIY could it. Also a nonstop could go some way in keeping VN off starting its own nonstop flights to the US when they get more 789/359s.

But then again this is UA we're talking about here...

IAH-OIL-TRASH

I think LAX-SGN would do/be better.

EWR764

One would think that such a robust market would at least warrant a nonstop service to the United States from the national airline, with a fleet of 777s, 787s, A330s and A350s, but alas...

I don't see your point... United obviously has no aversion to launching novel longhaul flying to emerging markets, given the examples you cite, so...

... this is the issue. The Vietnamese VFR segment is huge but historically not high-yielding and LAX-centric. Similar to the Phillippines in that regard, and obviously business traffic is not commanding high enough fares to warrant an independent nonstop.

Now, it is possible that HKG-SGN could simply be returning to a WB flight and the HKG-SGN aircraft is to be reallocated to a GUM-China rotation, but I would bet the station is closing.

ANA has NRT-SGN service, though the eastbound timing is poor for UA connections.

AndyInSaigon

Disappointing.

spin88

It can't do any worse than XIY, which on Sunday 7/17 shows 8J and 10 Y+ seats filled (y- is 80% full) and I can buy for $308 Y, $2358 in J as part of a RT.

SFO-SGN is a very long flight, I don't see them getting the yields to do it as ULR flight, SFO-BKK would seem a better call.

AndyInSaigon

I'm hoping for a return to WB but won't hold my breath.

Odd timing: UA has been heavily promoting SGN-US flights in local media & via agents.

EWR764

I think it's on the radar. UA is obviously trying to get out of flying international tags and fifth-freedom services. SFO-SIN was always a much higher priority than SFO-BKK, but with two 787-9s coming in early 2017, and three more to follow later (more likely 2018), there is definitely room for another ULH in the SFO portfolio, and BKK would seem to be the most likely candidate.

Once more sCO 777-224ERs are on the West Coast to start 744 replacement (supposedly to begin after the 77Ws arrive, same with ORD), BKK would theoretically be within 777 range, too, given their slightly longer legs than the -222ERs.

spin88

Then you would not understand the market. Most US Vietnamese traffic does not look kindly on the Communist State, and are not going to fly their airline if other options exist. Not all will boycott, but enough to impact the feasibility of them flying it.

The ANA connections are horrible, UA is basically bailing on this market.

p.s. Delta code shares with VN and KoreanAir and and can get you there on partners with good connections. My guess is that causes some folks to switch to Delta.

First there are about 425K people of vietnamese ancestry in So. Cal, there are 337K in Nor. Cal., It makes far more sense to fly from SFO than LAX given that distribution.

LAX-SGN is 8153 miles, SFO-SGN is 7823 miles. That extra 350 miles makes a big difference at that range. To give context, SFO-SIN is 8446 and they will have to block of Y seats in the winter. Flying to SGN they will need to fill all of the Y seats. So from SFO it is marginal, from LAX the extra 350 miles is a killer...

EWR764

So SFO-SIN is already technically possible with current generation aircraft. Wouldn't it stand to reason that somebody would be in the market, if it were so lucrative?

Vietnam is a VFR-oriented market with historically low yields. The business sector is growing but is not driving premiums sufficient to justify a nonstop service yet.

If United has better use for the 737 elsewhere, is this terribly unreasonable?

JOSECONLSCREW28

The sub CO 777s are staying on the east coast and midwest. Haven't seen anything about them moving out west.

riphamilton

sad to see it go. HCMC is fascinating. it's one of those "i only visited because UA flies there" cities for me.

really hope that we see nonstop dreamliner service.

EWR764

You're right... I am confusing the sCO 777s with the 77W, which apparently will also be deployed out of SFO *at some point*.

I understand, however, that the sCO 772s are the de facto 747 replacement in Chicago, at least in terms of airframes. Maybe not on a route-by-route basis.

spin88

I think this is another route killed off by UA doing a CO 737 tag. Not only was the wait long and the arrival and take off times bad, but you got this little rinky dink plane at the end. What UA was offering was just not competitive, with say taking CX or the Korean Airlines, or changing planes in TPE being wide body the entire way and with better times.

As to SFO-BKK, I would raise the same issues as with SFO-SGN, its a very long flight (7932 miles) and I doubt there will be the very good Premium load UA is getting (for now... ) to SIN. I don't think they can make it work unless they fill the plane in Y, which is hard if you are blocking off seats.

p.s. no way the economics work with the fuel burn of the 777. A 350-9 may work SFO-SGN (or LAX-SGN) as it would not need seats blocked westbound in the winter.